Posted
by
simoniker
on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @10:17PM
from the prohibition-is-on dept.

Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA chose to sue were actually violating the law. You can't possibly think that suing less than a fraction of a percent of p2p abusing copyright violators somehow makes more people look guilty than actually are?

After writing that, I realized that I can probably agree completely with the plaintiffs in this RICO suit, but I will get called all kinds of names for calling your sorry post an overreaction.

Well, this has been tried before [slashdot.org] against directv (they were suing people who had purchased smart card readers). The judge (in Texas IIRC) ruled that speech related to litigation was protected, and not racketeering.

This sounds similar to the approach taken by Mitsubishi regarding the Lemelson machine vision patents. I believe Mitsubishi argued that the Lemelson foundation had deliberately embarked on a practice of bringing weak patent claims nationwide because it knew that most defendants could not afford protracted litigation, and then would "settle" by requiring each defendant to purchase a license that cost less than the cost of defense. So virtually every defendant was forced to settle even though they believed the patents had no merit (and, ultimately, those patents were invalidated). My recollection is that the RICO claim did not work, but I am sure that counsel in the RIAA case has review the arguments pretty carefully.

RIAA:You really would let me sue you, you sick fuck.College Kid:You ever hear of casettes? People have been downloading music for decades. The Industry tried to take advantage of people back then, and where are they now?RIAA:You're looking at them, asshole.

That's a great point. In fact, the quick settlement of the early suits not only emboldened the RIAA, but in the eyes of the general population it probably seemed like a signal that the RIAA was right all along and those nasty song swappers settled quick because they knew they were wrong. Legally a settlement is neutral, but in the eyes of the public, it says guilty for someone. With someone fighting back, suddenly it starts to turn the other way, with lone individuals taking a stand against a big record industry - people love that!

I think a more significant response would be to put pressure on the DoJ to file criminal charges against the RIAA for their tactics. If this woman's case has any merits, and voters seem to care enough to make it an campaign issue in the presidential race, it's possible. At that point, the RIAA would clearly quit, because they're practically certain to have their civil cases dismissed with contempt of court if those cases are the subject of criminal charges, and they wouldn't be able to get any lawyers (a.k.a. co-conspirators, who lose privilege) for the cases anyway.

Sure, it's not as fitting an end to the RIAA as being gunned down by a rival street gang in LA (or arrested by the LAPD), but it's something. I wonder if they're due for an audit...

'Three Strikes' laws are actually quite popular among the citizens because they are perceived to protect the law obiding majority from the violent criminals. Likewise, nearly every instance of unfair punishment in the war on drugs has been against a poor minority, and the majority thinks "this won't happen to me."

In contrast, most people do not perceive sharing music as a crime. In fact, it's pretty hard to explain to most people what is wrong with it. Seeing people get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a few digital music files is far more likely to evoke a reaction.

I can't predict how the public will react, and I'm especially unsure that people will care enough to do anything about it, but this is quite a different case from those you cited.

They're saying "Pay this small fine of several thousand dollars, or when we take you to court we'll ensure that you and all of your immediate family are destitute for the next 3 generations"

They're banking (no pun intended) on the fact that most people see that it will cost at least as much as the proposed fine to hire a lawyer and fight, and by fighting there is no guarantee they will win, so they just pay the fine rather than take the risk.

They're saying "Pay this small fine of several thousand dollars, or when we take you to court we'll ensure that you and all of your immediate family are destitute for the next 3 generations"

You're absolutely right.

The core problem is that the law allows for ridiculously high monetary penalties for violating a copyright. It seems to have been written to deter those who would make millions off bootlegged distribution. But it's being applied to people who violated copyright for no financial gain, and typically they weren't even aware they were sharing files (they only thought they were downloading for themselves).

I mean, imagine that a law was passed to penalize big businesses from dumping garbage in rivers, and it would cost them $100,000 per incident. But since "incident" was so vaguely defined, even dropping a gum wrapper off a canoe would mean you violated the law. So the gov't could sue you for $100,000, but they offer to settle for $3,000. A lawyer would cost you $3,000 anyway, so what the hell do you do? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think the best that could come out of this is that the law will be declared unconstitutional on the basis of "penalty doesn't fit the crime" (via cruel/unusual punishment). If the RIAA successfully prosecuted everyone they've contacted for one song each (over 2000 by my count so far?) and got the maximum penalty of $30,000, they would have been awarded $60,000,000 dollars! WTF? Were they really damaged $60,000,000 by the sharing of 2000 songs? Those 2,000 people could have been sharing the same single song to at least 10 people, so even if the RIAA lost $20 worth of missed-album purchases, they'd still be only be $40,000 in the hole. And that's not even considering that the record companies pocket just a percentage of each album's sticker price.

I wish one of our legislators would read this and realize how ridiculous it is:

What the Law Says:

The distribution of copyrighted materials over the Internet for which the distributor (any server - including your computer) does not have permission can be a violation of federal criminal law, a law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Most of the music, games or videos downloaded through file-sharing programs like Morpheus or KaZaA lack permission of the copyright owner. And, those very programs that you use to download material, automatically open file-sharing services from your computer. So, without your knowing it explicitly, by downloading the program and the files your computer is programmed to share files back out into the international Internet community. You are therefore liable to be in violation of the DMCA, even if all you did was download a single song. Each criminal offense carries with it a minimum fine of $30,000 and a potential jail sentence.

The RIAA dosen't offer you a day in court either. They have so much financial resources that they can just force any case that goes to court to stretch out so long that you will simply go bankrupt and try to flee to Mexico. They know that there is hardly a Jury on earth that would side with a corrupt monopoly that sues 12 year olds, so they just force you to spend tens-of-thousands of dollars in the preliminaries before you even get to Jury selection.

But if they do that and you can show that they're doing so in order to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings or cause undue hardships (and we're not talking a high standard of proof here) they get their case thrown out and they will probably have to pay for your lawyer. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11.

If you are not guilty, you have the absolute right to demand your day in court.

You would not be nearly so smug if they sued you, even by accident. Not only can anything happen in a court room, but you'll spend hundreds to throusands of your own dollars to prove your innocence -- of which you won't get a penny back if you do win.

She might not have the cashflow, but if what an earlier poster said about the Racketeering Act covering legal fees is true, that mightn't matter.

I quote the earlier poster:

Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees.

a) Do nothing, and seem ineffective at stopping P2P (which they already are, but it's a different thing to give up the PR battle) orb) Drive every court case home. The evidence is quite clear, the possible damages huge. The courts might award them considerably higher fines than any settlement.

Somehow I think this will push them to b), and I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of the next $97 billion lawsuit... $97 million, billion, trillion, kazillion is kinda irrelevant at that point anyway.

Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:

1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.

So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.

According to the RIAA, which filed its latest round of lawsuits against 531 as-yet-anonymous individuals on Tuesday, it has settled with 381 people, including some who had not yet actually had suits filed against them yet.

It's a bit of a stretch, but, there *is* something to be said about the RIAA basically bullying people into settling through what amounts to intimidation.
What a judge has to decide is if this is okay when the RIAA is essentially legally "in the right" to begin with. But, there is something to be said for the average defendant not feeling like that have a chance in hell against the RIAA's formidable resources.

Why is it that the police will arrest individuals, but corporations seem to need to be sued? If someone sent in a tip to the police that the RIAA were racketeering, nothing would happen, but if the same tip were applied to an individual or gang, there would be an investigation. These days, big businesses seem much more powerful because they can hide behind lawyers and deep pockets.

My understanding of Irish law is quite simply that, if a company is guilty of a criminal act then the directors (and even large shareholders) can be held liable. Are you really telling me I can set up a corporation in the USA, employ a bunch of people to setup a protection racket and not be liable for anything because I set up a corporation to do it? Can I setup a hitman service, child porn? If that isn't garbage then my view of the US system just managed to go even lower!

The RIAA companies probably make a small profit when someone settles with them for a few grand. Lawyers take their cut, but a settlement contract isn't all that expensive or time consuming for the RIAA.

But unless they win HUGE punitive damages (and the loser actually has the money to pay and doesn't declare bankruptcy) they probably lose money when it comes down to a lawsuit. And that takes a long time and involves a lot of up-front legal expenses, for questionable return.

If enough people start counter-suing the RIAA, or at least going to court instead of settling, then the lawsuits will soon become a huge financial burden on the RIAA, even when they win.

This seems like the racketeering suit filed against DirecTV [dtvlawsuits.com], which was tossed out of court. Still, I'm glad that someone is taking a stand. Even if this suits and others like it are not successful, the RIAA may change tactics as they begin to meet resistance.

In fact, even in today's legal climate I doubt it will survive the priliminary hearing. If the RIAA had any legitimate cause they the right to bring action. They also had the right to settle, as did anyone they brought action against.

If you lend someone ten bucks, they say they can't pay, you sue them, and you both agree to settle the matter for a fiver there is no extortion.

In fact the courts do everything they can to encourage such a resolution and avoid a trial.

If she felt the RIAA did not have grounds she had the opportunity to have her day in court.

Settling and then demanding your day in court, plus damages, well, that's a wee bit of a stretch, even against the RIAA.

The people who have been hustled by the RIAA "cops" would stand a much better chance with this sort of action.

In fact, even in today's legal climate I doubt it will survive the priliminary hearing. If the RIAA had any legitimate cause they [had] the right to bring action. They also had the right to settle, as did anyone they brought action against.

If you lend someone ten bucks, they say they can't pay, you sue them, and you both agree to settle the matter for a fiver there is no extortion.

In this case though, they're accusing you of stealing $10, they threaten to sue you sue you for $250,000 and offer to settle for $1000.

If you're innocent, your choices are;
Pay them the $1,000.
Pay a lawyer $10,000 and waste a year of your life fighting the case.

Sure if you're guilty it's a generous offer on their part.But if you're innocent, it's extortion.

"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."

First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.

At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.

There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.

In my opinion, this has never looked good for the RIAA. First, they helped create laws that would impose very large fines for relatively minor offenses. Then they make deals with alleged copyright violators to settle at a fraction of the fine.

One has to ask two questions. First, if they are willing to settle for such a small amount, why are the fines so high to begin with. Wouldn't it be more efficient to set fines at a appropriate level in the first place? It is very arguable that such high fines were created to allow extortion.

Second, why do they want to settle so badly? It seems like they would want some percentage of the cases to go to court to establish that these people actually violated copyright. As it stands, it would be very reasonable to assert that they are randomly choosing people, and then extorting money from them.

So, with the current tactics, extortion and fear seems to be their game. It is like those old shows where a gang would go into a business and demand protection money. There are legal ways to extort this kind of money, the MPAA and BSA does it. The RIAA does not seem to care about the law.

I really don't understand why the RIAA does not get an independent arbitrator to look at each case, assign a dollar value to the damages, and then send a letter to the alleged violators. Further legal proceedings might occur if the money is not paid, but at least then we would have some confidence that the RIAA is not just harassing innocent people.

IANAL, and am just thinking out loud, but couldn't those that have been singled out by the RIAA claim some sort of discrimination? More specifically, there are hundreds of thousands of people the RIAA could pursue for sharing music. What is the chance of convincing a court to force the RIAA to attempt to identify and prosecute every single user of Kazaa that distribute RIAA music?

Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.

The RIAA has been threatening prosecution under a law (the DMCA), that gives them a 30,00 dollar penalty at base, or 5 times that (150,000 per incident) if they can prove willfullness. They are being taken to court under RICO, a law aimed at organized crime, yet that law only allows 3x damages, and requires proving criminal intent, which seems to be a lot higher standard than willfulness. It's a good thing for the RIAA that the "cruel and unusual" clause doesn't automaticly apply to civil suits, or that very fact would shoot down the DMCA.
Why do they have a special law that lets them come down harder on file sharers than victims of the mob can fight back against mobsters? Do we really need a law that is tougher on copyright violators than the law is allowed to get on Drug Kingpins, Murder for Hire rings, or general Racketeers?

This is most likely off topic, but I was thinking about it the other day -- isn't it interesting that RIAA is stating that theft of music is wrong? If you just happen to look at the artists that RIAA represents you have to wonder about the legitimacy of RIAA preaching morality. In the music that is pedaled by RIAA you get everything from sex, drugs, murder, all manner of crime andtheft. I guess my confusion is why does RIAA expect the customer base to follow a different moral and ethical standard than that of the music that is being sold? I am not saying that all of the music represented by RIAA is immoral or amoral, just that the subject matter of some is.

Just a thought...

(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)

"It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks."... the above quote is from the article--right at the end. Unfortunately this racketeering counter-suit doesn't work when the people being sued are doing the illegal/infringing activities.

How do I know? DirecTV has been doing the same thing for far, far longer, someone counter-sued them for racketeering, and the suit was dismissed. If I'm not mistaken, it was even discussed here on Slashdot.

Anyway, the alleged activities these people are engaged in are illegal in the U.S. (but not in Canada!) so if it's proven they did them, then it's proven.

Think of the consequences of a racketeering conviction! A company would no longer be able to sue large masses of people who were infringing their intellectual property! Ack, the chaos that would ensue there!

Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees. Personally, I'd like to see a massive class-action lawsuit against these dirtbags. If it can be won, surely the damages would be enough to curb their malicious behavior.

They may already started down that route with the HMO's. I can't remember if that "HMO Protection Act" has passed or not. It might just be slipped in with some sort of tort reform thing. Either way, the gov't will do what it can to protect its main propaganda machine.Taken to the extreme, they could be assimilated into the federal gov't, making them immune to all lawsuits. I know that's silly, but worse things have happened.

What somethinghallow is referring to is this response [house.gov] to a local newspapers editorial staff.

Here is a little sampling of my favorites for the lazy slashdot reader:

"...what is shocking is that the entertainment industries are now being completely lambasted by the editorial board for what is essentially their home town paper."
The editoral board of a home town paper is supposed to completely support any stance of local industries?

Its actually very difficult to tell what side he is on, because he keeps bringing up opposing views:The nature of the problem is easy to describe to any consumer who has tried to jump into the digital content fray. A well-meaning consumer buys songs through the Apple iTunes store rather than downloading illegal files from Kazaa. But then, he finds those songs don?t play on his Creative Nomad MuVo digital music player, which he bought for a substantial sum only last year. Another well-meaning consumer finds he cannot sign up for Movielink because he refuses to use Internet Explorer as his browser. Another finds that, in signing up for different digital media services, each attempts to establish a different media player as his default, the result being substantial annoyance and inconvenience when trying to use a service.

But the best quote by far:The editorial uses as a jumping off point the recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case that pitted Verizon against the Recording Industry Association of America.... few paragraphs later... The editorial also characterizes the D.C. Circuit decision as ?a victory for consumer privacy rights.? I think it?s the opposite.
I always forget that not providing your customer's names away for what has been illegal finding of your customer's ISP is not a "victory for comsumer privacy".../sarcasm

Hold the phone here, while I don't agree with the methods they are using to get information they are doing what they have a legal right to do in respect to protecting their property. Yes it is their property, without going into how they got it and if their contracts with musicians are screwing the musicians. Also forgetting that they would rather litigate than release a simple way to pay for the music online without only being able to listen to it once.

They own it, everyone downloading it is pirating it under the law, they have every right to take legal action and they are. This should be no surprise, they are simply using the laws we have allowed to be created. End of story

I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...

I won't disagree with you but Congress already has. The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material. In other words, Congress specifically made mere trading illegal. People running P2P clients are making infringing material available because they expect to download other infringing material.

The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material.

Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?

Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.

Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.

Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.

If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.

If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.

Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...

You're probably thinking of arguments heard in a 9th Circuit appeals cout on Feb. 3 of this year in re: the Grokster case. During those oral arguments, available as mp3 here [eff.org], Judge Noonan told music industry attorney Cary Ramos to stop using abusive language like "theft" when framing his arguments against Grokster.

Listening to the above mp3 is great to (1) listen to what a real appellate argument sounds like, and (2) hear real lawyers debate stuff that's important to many/. readers, including file sharing and the meaning of the Sony Betamax decision.

>> Since when do judges in the U.S. define the>> meaning of words in a language?

Judges anywhere can tell lawyers to stop using one term to describe another. If I call a person who was shoplifting a murderer, that can influence the audience, media, and jury, any anyone else involved in a case. I imagine most people see a huge difference between shoplifting and killing, but I'm not alone in seeing a huge difference between piracy and file sharing.

Actually, this is a pretty close metaphor. Real pirates killed people. They tortured them to get that treasure. They kidnaped people for ransom and often they defaulted on the promise to return them and killed them anyway. They raped. In many cases, they bore arms against the militarys of their former nations in time of war, which fits the general definition of Treason. Calling copyright violators pirates IN COURT is simply an attempt to emotionally influence the jury. Further, a lawyer has taken oaths and claims to abide by ethical standards, some of which require them to attempt to speak accurately in using legal terms in court, and, as anybody should know, Piracy is first a legal term in a court, and only secondarily at best a metaphor.

Piracy still exists in all its forms. No a luxury liner or cargo ship doing the run between america and europe or cruising the coastal waters of these countries is safe. That is because these waters are heavily patrolled by extremely powerfull ships that nobody but a goverment can afford.

But in the east piracy still happens exactly as it happened in the time of sailing ships. Sure the movies may have shown pirate ships with three decks of cannons taking on the british navy but that is fiction. Most pirates used small fast ships wich could out manouver their prey (don't forget that canons of those days were more or less fixed and you needed to move the entire ship to aim) and then board and overwhelm the largely civilian crew.

This is still the way it goes. Pirate ships have gotten smaller but then most civilian ships these days are totally unarmed anyway and their crews have gotten smaller.

Piracy of a different sorts exists in areas where drug running takes place where pleasure yachts(?) are captured and the owners forced to smuggle drugs or simply killed.

For the facts on piracy today search google with "piracy lloyds" (lloyds is a famous insurance company) you will find countless links talking about the costs, the risks and people offering protection. The lloyds bits helps keeping the filesharing "piracy" links down.

So I agree with the judge who might have said that calling filesharing piracy is wrong. Piracy is a current and far different crime.

So what is it when someone listens to a song on the radio? Does having a copy of the song so you can listen to it when you want make it theft? What if you record it off the radio?

I'm not saying I think file sharing is not theft, I'm just playing "what if".

I was thinking about "piracy" the other day. If I break into your house and take your TV, it is obviously theft because I have obtained the TV without paying for it and you have suffer the loss of your TV. If, however I make a copy of your copyrighted song, I have still gotten something without paying, but you are not out anything except the money you theoretically would have received for my copy.

When I was a kid, I used to make "unauthorized copies" of lots of programs for my Commodore 64 (I don't do that anymore... I mostly use Free Software or buy the few things I can't get as Open Source). Anyway, the software industry was not really deprived of the money they would have gotten from me purchasing all those games because I never could have afforded them anyway.

To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No. That's why I find the numbers they spread around about the cost of "piracy" to be misleading.

Saying it's "a form of theft" is no more valid than saying it's "theft". Copyright infringement is not a FORM of theft. Calling it theft "therefore" is not even vaguely valid.

Since your premise is faulty your house of cards falls down. Repeating your statement in capital letters does not make your point any more valid than talking slowly does.

Copyright infringement is closer to an "infringement of a prohibition" [against copying and distribution] than it is to theft, stealing, larceny, pilfering or light-fingered-ness.
It's closer to the breaking of an exclusivity contract [and one in which you have no right to negotiate].

Using politically motivated, inflamatory language ["theft"; "piracy"] does not make it any worse an act in reality.

There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.

First degree murder

Second degree murder

Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter

Vehicular Manslaughter

Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter

And, my personal favorite:

Intoxicated Manslaughter

I always thought dead was dead, you know? In any case, copyright infringement isn't theft, which I agree with, but our legal system isn't as clear with language as you say it is. They do invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime, usually because it means something specific, such as Capital Murder. You get a harsher sentence if you kill for money than you do if you kill for fun.

Actually no. You see many people (I think a growing number) are starting to realize that music is not property. To be fair, no information can be "property". The only reason we stick to this flawed paradigm is because all of the legal mechanisms of our societies are geared toward handling physical "private property" and are unable to cope with attempts at using information as "property".

I recommend
this [isanet.org] analysis of the fallacies of treating information that way. The RIAA/MPAA and the current USPO maddness are only tips of the iceberg. Think someone else's "ownership" of your DNA and patenting/copyrights on large integer numbers.

Music (or software) Piracy is not about stealing some sort of physical property, and never has been. If I "steal" a song via Kazaa, the RIAA isn't short one copy. However, by copying or distributing copyrighted works you are, in effect, depriving the original author of that work income (lets just pretend the artist usually gets the money).

It's not about whether you would or wouldn't have purchased a copy if it were cheaper or easier either. The fact is that you have taken something for free, which the owner has asked payment for. Just as a service isn't property, but you are still required to pay for your phone, your cable, your Doctor etc.

The law does not see music as property, just as it doesnt see a service as property, it is somewhere in between. The flaw isn't in the way the RIAA treats music, the flaw is in those who somehow feel right in taking something which they should rightly be required to pay for. It costs a lot of money to produce and promote an album, and those who pay for that are entitled to due payment for you using it.

If you are SERIOUS about supporting artists, and SERIOUS about screwing the RIAA. Go out and support your local unsigned artists by turning up to their gigs and buying their CD's, but dont take something you aren't entitled to just because you think music shouldn't be owned by anyone.

I work in software. I write software for a living, and I expect to get paid for it. I provide valuable expertise that I use to build (hopefully) a very valuable product.

Yet my work is 'performed' only once (when I code it) and yet is run on a playback device (that others already paid for) over and over again. By your logic, I should only be able to sell one copy of any software that I write.

After all, I'm asking for a 'stream of endless payments' for not doing anything but making copies of what I already have.

That is completely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation, but in the continuing value it provides. You may open it 1000000 times, and everytime it is likely to prove useful to you (otherwise why would you use it?). When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.

It's the same exact thing here. Sure, you can make money on live performances. However, creating copies of performances and providing on demand playback of those performances is EXTREMELY valuable as well. It entertains people, it passes time, it comforts.. recorded music has many functions. When you buy a CD your aren't buying a bucket of bits, but rather you are paying for the hard work and talent that went into producing those copies. You listen to music because it's valuable, but it's value lies not in it's physical qualities but in it's end result.

Artists do not only create art from the need to express themselves. Artists are motivated by many many things, and money is one of them. Many of the greatest painters throughout history worked almost solely on comission after all. You'll find that 'starving artists' starve not because they are true artists but because people do not find their works particularly valuable. The value of art has more to do with it's age and fame of the artist (often not gained until well after death) then the quality of the painting itself.

So I fail to see the problem. It sounds to me like you want a free lunch. You want to enjoy the VALUE provided by this music, without having to give anything in return. I would find it hard to beleive that you would expect someone to cut your hair (something presumably valuable) and yet not pay for it when you leave. Why is a recording different? Just because it's easy to copy it doesn't make it right.

" they are doing what they have a legal right to do in respect to protecting their property. "

Actually, this lawsuit alleges that they are, in fact, doing what they do not have a legal right to do. We shall see. Furthermore, previous tactics (such as mass-suing individuals from one location regardless of where the alleged infringement took place) has already been ruled illegal. Thus, a whole bunch of subpoenas were ruled invalid.

"Yes it is their property, without going into how they got it and if their contracts with musicians are screwing the musicians. Also forgetting that they would rather litigate than release a simple way to pay for the music online without only being able to listen to it once."

Actually, this has RICO and anti-trust implications. If the RIAA, (and thus member companies) are guilty of RICO and anti-trust violations, it may very well not be their intellectual property at all. In any event, it would be highly doubtful that they would be able to continue enforcing their IP rights.

" everyone downloading it is pirating it under the law,"

Really? Pirating? That's rather... absurd. Legally speaking, by making unauthorized copies of the music to which the RIAA holds copyrights, they're committing 'copyright infringement'. Copyright infringement is about the legal equivalent of tresspassing, only the draconian laws surrounding it have set the possible damages per infringement absurdly high to discourage commercial copyright infringement.

"This should be no surprise, they are simply using the laws we have allowed to be created. "

There's a woman in New Jersey who, along with her lawyers, not only believes differently, but is willing to put her 'rear end' on the line to prove it. Should she succeed, or even get a foot in the door, I think you'll see a whole lot more suits like her's. Do you think the RIAA can afford to engage, say 10,000 people, in long, involved lawsuits?

You are correct; it's illegal and the RIAA have a right to defend the unauthorized use of their member's property.

To me the issue is the level of penalty; $125,000 per incident (not per song; per each time someone accessed the song).I think that was meant to dissuade commerical copying, but the RIAA are using it against individuals, and only individuals, some of whom the public would be very sympathetic towards.

A 12-year old kid (to use the now-cliche'd defendant) could easily find themselves facing hundreds of millions in penalties; all the RIAA has to prove is that 10 people shared a copy of one Brittany Spears song on the kid's Kazza folder and it's already $ 1.25 million. Some of the people they're going after probably are looking at a bill of about a half-billion dollars (5000 songs, shared just once each) or 10 times that (each song shared 10 times) or even more.

You can run a war for a day or three on that kind of money. Which citizen has that kind of scratch? Or how about $4.83 Billion? That's Sony Music's annual revenue (2003). Given that I'd be pleased as punch with a 10% profit margin (Sony is bleeding red ink from every aspect of it's operations, not just music), am I supposed to believe that a fine levied against one prolific music sharer can equal the potential net profit of a huge music company? Why print the CDs at all?

I'd just leave the damn masters laying around the studios at night and wait for some sucker to upload 'em to Kazza. Sure beats all that manufacturing and advertising bullshit, and I'm guaranteed a profit? Count me in.

When the punishment does not fit the crime, and the RIAA uses the threat of onerous punishment to elict a quick settlement, it raises some questions that I think should be answered.

The law itself is not valid. The US has a principle of supercedence of law. The higher a levels of law override the lower ones. So A city can't make something legal that is illegal on a federal level, for example. Works the other way too, the right to freedom of speech can't be nulled in a given state, it's at a higher level. Specifically, it's at the HIGHEST level. The constitution overrides all other levels of law. Hence why the supreme court is so concerned with the constutionality of a given law or legal action. Their job is to intrepret teh supreme law of the land, that being the constituion.

Well, one of the ammendments states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The key here being the cruel and unusal punishments. The intent and interpretation of this law is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot execut someone for anything less than a murder (and a premeditated one at that) because it wouldn't fit the crime.

Well, as you noted, the statutory punishment for copyright infringment is TOTALLY out of line with the crime. If 20 people download a song worth $1 the makimum you can posibly claim it cost you is $20. Theoretically, if those 20 people intended to spend the money on your song, but elected not to because they got it for free, you would have not gotten $20 in sales. Of course, this is all theoretical. Some of those that downloaded may decide to but the song anyhow, and some may not have been willing to pay regardless of if they could not get it for free.

Regardless, it is quite clear that the statutority damages are totally out of line with the crime. Thus the law is invalid, it is a cruel and unusal punishment and in violation of the constituion.

I see this BS copyright "damages" the same as if they decided to charge people $10,000 for each mile per hour over the speed limit they went for tickets. The crime is just as (if not more) harmeless and thus should be in the same class of punsihment (small fine, not billions of dollars).

Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.

In a way, you're right. If the laws are corrupt, then the only hope is that juries will refuse to enforce them.

And despite what judges and lawyers will tell you, this is a legal right, which pre-dates the constitution, and was not overrulled by it.

Because of this the govt. is trying to remove the requirement for unanimity on the part of the jury to achieve a conviction. Some people, for some reason, don't think that the government is treating people fairly.

Now that mainly has to do with criminal prosecutions, and this is probably a civil matter, but the same basic principles apply. Juries should attend to the facts, and attend to the laws, and then decide as their ethics requires. Judges are to instruct you in matters of law, and to see that the evidence is presented in a proper manner. Juries are to decide what the verdict should be.

Perhaps your answer should have been "Yes. I am a strong proponent of jury nullification. My obligation is not merely to determine whether the defendant violated the law, but whether he or she committed a crime." You'll probably wind up on the jury pool's equivalent of a no-call list.

Here in Fulton County (Georgia, U.S.), the jurors waiting room has brochures everywhere from some legal foundation or another, describing jury nullification. It would be nice if somebody read the damned things.

Well, yeah I am proud of telling the truth even though the judge gives me a hard time about it.

In fact, you're right, I don't want to be there... in the end most people with important stuff to do get excused and the juries end up being made solely of little old ladies and public servants.

And I feel guilty/lucky in some way that I have a legitimate way out.

But if I didn't have the out I wouldn't lie or make up some lame excuse like some do.

It's the judge that gets rid of me every time, and the reason is that they don't like jury nullification, even though it's probably the only reason we're there. I say that since the judge could make a better determination of law than a group of little old ladies and bureaucrats. All I do is answer the lawyers' and judge's questions to the best of my knowledge.

I agree they sound pleased that they did not have to serve on the jury, but if they are not lying, then not serving on the jury is a decision the JUDGE is making, not the potential juror.

Your statement about "you'd rather not do your civic duty" is totally off base - nothing was said by the parent poster about not wanting to be on the jury(ies), only about their belief in the juries being able to act in a legal manor that is inconvenient to the legal system.

"[A]nd would rather get off without serving." is also without merit. The parent poster did not say they were responding to the judge in that manor to "get off without serving" - notice the part that says " "No, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification"...and it happens to be the truth!"

I find it disturbing that you seem to think 1) that stating the truth about your feelings or beliefs is wrong, 2) lying in court is acceptable, and 3) you have any business passing judgement on others in a public forum.

And despite what judges and lawyers will tell you, this is a legal right, which pre-dates the constitution, and was not overrulled by it.

The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.

You don't seem to understand the problems involved with your use of jury nullification. What you don't understand is that all government is broken into administrative and political branches.

You are mistaking your role as a juror for an aspect of the political branch when really it's an aspect of the administrative (all judicial rulings below the supreme court are considered administrative).

Now the reason for laws is to define which behaviors society wants it's citizens to follow. (I assume you live in a "democracy") it's basically the guidelines that everyone is expected to follow so we can all get along, these are set at diffrent times but they are not changed often because the government is concerned over the avarice [reference.com] of people. (ex. Everyone wants a new tv so tuesday they decide stealing tv's should be legal).

They don't have you in the jury box in order to decide policy, they have you in the jury box to decide whether the accused is guilty of a crime (law says a, accused did a = guilty a,b!=guilty). Emotions get in the way of factual judgements, whether they impact your understanding of what the law says or bias your opinion of what the accused did.

So why are you there? Well first there are twelve of you, this is to hopefully weed out an individual's emotional issues regarding an issue. Second it is so the government can't cover up crimes. Twelve people will have seen what the government is doing and be able to speak out against it.

In conclusion don't take advantage of your role as an administrator to accomplish political goals. History has shown that a society can rush to judgement (60 war/anti-war, 30's America almost went communist,45 America wanted Japan destroyed, ). Democracy's slow march has prevented as many disasters as it has caused. I am a firm believer that almost all information should be available for free. Know your rights, know how to be politically active, and if you have the majority behind you and the government doesn't listen, well there's always the second ammendment.

Wrong, the sole reason that we need a jury is jury nullification. The ability for common people to say that the representative were wrong, and were not acting in the best interest of the people when they enacted a piece of legisaltion

After all, a judge is much better at deciding maters of fact and law than any juror is.

If that were true it still doesn't invalidate jury nullification. Laws are created for a purpose. But language is imperfect, and legislators don't alway have the foresight to understand all possible situations that may meet the wording of the law. (Just look at some of the DMCA cases.) There are cases where the defendent may have technically violated the wording of the law but not the original intent. People should not be punished because of imperfection in language and lack of foresight.

But even beyond that, juries are there to decide the guilt of a person, not whether they violated a law. Whether a person violated the law is not something that a layperson is very good at. Experts are much better at that. Whether the person deserves to be pushished is what citizen decide.

In principle, I agree with you. But there were some pretty famous cases in the US, prior to the civil rights movement, where white defendants who were clearly guilty of murdering black victims were acquitted of murder by all-white juries. This abuse of the right to acquit is part of what has led to an effort at cracking down on that right.

Still, it is true that a jury can always acquit, even if it believes the defendant factually guilty. There are no legaly sanctioned repercussions for the jurors.

Maybe you could get SCO to sue the RIAA if they use Linux on their machines, and vice versa? Oh if it were only possible to get them both suing each other, and maybe take themselves out in the process. Or maybe just nuke em both.

It would be really neat if it actually worked this way. It doesn't. The civil courts are less and less about who's in the right and more and more about who can afford to play the game. The math works in the RIAA's favor here. If I'm going to have to lawyer up to the tune of ten grand I don't have and waste a year of my hairline to defend my name, or pay two grand that I can spread out on credit cards, how is that so different from "pay us 30% out of the register, or maybe have an electrical fire?"

As for open and shut cases, do you really trust an organization that's suing a list of IP addresses because they can't actually go to the trouble of finding actual defendants? Given that a significant percentage of the last batch of addresses aren't even in the United States (the jurisdiction of the court in which the suits were filed), do we trust their investigative prowess so much as to call the cases open and shut? If you're truly concerned about harm to your business, you do the research. If you can't even be bothered to

And I am sick of people who think that the objection to actions like this by the RIAA are based on legality alone.

People who focus solely on what is and is not legal (like the RIAA and yourself) are missing the point. Sure what the RIAA is doing is legal. But it is also ludicrous.

By (ab)using the legal system in this fashion, the law must be made ever more stringent, new exceptions and modifications must be introduced and so it grows more complex and (from observation) less flexible.

All that this sort of legalism encourages isa) pressure by special interest groups to change laws to be more favourable or to leave in place laws that have long past their intended purpose to the detriment of the community at large;b) business models based more on litigation than real value;c) an increasingly complex legal structure that becomes less and less a codification of the will of the people and more an artifact to protect those who can best manipulate it.

The law is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It should be (and again I own to idealism) a means of defining the desires of those who elected the people making those laws.

Take a step back. The law under a democratic system should be a tool for everyone and usable by everyone, and examples like this are making it increasingly apparent it is not.